Brian Rogoff wrote:
> IMO, as someone with old code to maintain, I say fix things and make the
> language as close to perfect as you can.
For Ocaml, I agree, but then I don't have that much
old code I care about.
> When OCaml becomes so popular that it one of these standards
> organizations is involved, there will be significantly less ability to
> make incompatible changes.
I like your positive approach
"When Ocaml becomes so popular .." :-)
> Anyways, more growth is good. If OCaml reaches Python's popularity, that
> would be great.
But Python too is severely constrained by backwards
compatibility requirements. It is the main reason I gave up on it
as a serious language: it is beyond fixing.
OTOH, Ocaml doesn't really _need_ fixing :-)
> Perhaps we users should start writing
> tutorials, rather than asking INRIAns, as I'd rather that they work on
> growing the language.
I'd love to, but the language isn't popular enough for me
to make enough money selling books on it: I'd make a respectable income
from C++ books, but I have lost enthusiasm for promoting it.
Blame Ocaml for that. Catch-22.
--
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr